T CHINA PANDURANGA RAO Vs. B VENKATAPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this revision is whether the plaintiffs have lost their right to adduce rebuttal evidence in view of the fact that they failed to reserve such a right when they adduced evidence in the first instance.

(2.) The suit is laid for the recovery of the amount due on the foot of a mortgage deed. One of the issues framed in the suit is "Whether defendants 1 to 4 are entitlad to the benefits of Act VII of 1977 ?" It is not in dispute that the burden is on the defendants to prove this issue. It is also not in dispute that the plainitifs adduced evidence and closed his evidence without adducing any evidence on this issue. The present application, out of which this revision arises, was filed by the plaintiffs to permit them to adduce rebuttal evidence after the defendants adduced evidence in support of this issue, In the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in support of the Petition, it is statedi that they adduced evidence on other issues but reserved their right to adduce evidence on this issue and hencs they may be permitted to adduce rebuttal evidence on this issue. It was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs did not reservetheir right adduce rebuttal evidence and hence they are not entitled to re-open the case and seek permission to adduce evidence. The court below accepted this contention raised by the defendants and dismissed the application. It held that the plaintiffs did not reserve his right to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal and he must reserve such a right before the commencement of the evidence of the defendants, as held in L. Nookalamma Vs. L. Simhachalam (1) AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 82 and nance the present application was dismissed. As against that order the present revision is filed.

(3.) The question depends upon the true interpretation of Order 18 Rule 3, Civii Procedure Code. It is extracted as follows :